ART. 4

What does Article 4 of the RPC provide?

Criminal liability is incurred

(1) by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended, and

(2) by any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Define proximate cause.

That cause which,

in natural and continuous sequence,

unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,

produces the injury,

and without which the result would not have occurred.

What is the general rule on liability for consequences under Art. 4, par. 1?

A person is criminally liable for all the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act, even if the actual wrong done is different from what he intended, so long as there is a direct causal connection between the felonious act and the resulting injury.

BAR: Urbano hacks Javier with a bolo. The wound heals, but about a month later Javier develops tetanus and dies. Is Urbano liable for homicide?

• No, only for physical injuries.

• Since the wound had already healed and the tetanus infection, given its incubation period, was more consistent with a later, separate exposure, the causal connection between the wound and the death was not clearly and unbrokenly established, breaking the chain of proximate causation (Urbano vs. Intermediate Appellate Court).

What is an efficient intervening cause, and what is its effect on liability?

A new and independent cause that intervenes between the felonious act and the resulting injury, breaking the causal connection so that the injury can no longer be considered the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the original act; where it exists, the offender is relieved of liability for the ultimate result.

Distinguish error in personae from aberratio ictus.

• Error in personae is a mistake in identity — the offender hits the person he actually aimed at, but that person turns out to be someone other than his intended victim;

• aberratio ictus is a mistake in the blow — the offender aims at one person but, due to poor aim or an unintended trajectory, hits a different person instead.

BAR: Guillen, intending to assassinate President Roxas, throws a hand grenade at him during a rally. The President survives, but a bystander is killed and others are injured. Is Guillen's liability for the bystander's death reduced to reckless imprudence?

No. Guillen is liable for murder as to the bystander and attempted murder as to the others, since he acted with deliberate malice in throwing a lethal weapon into a crowd — a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with reckless imprudence, so liability for the unintended victim remains intentional, not culpable (People vs. Guillen).

What is praeter intentionem, and how does it affect liability?

It occurs when the injurious result produced is graver than what the offender intended; it does not negate liability for the actual consequence under Art. 4's "natural and logical consequence" rule, but is appreciated as a mitigating circumstance under Art. 13, par. 3 (no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed).

Define impossible crime under Art. 4, par. 2.

An act which would be an offense against persons or property, but which cannot be accomplished either because of its inherent impossibility, or because of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Enumerate the requisites of an impossible crime.

(1) The act performed would be an offense against persons or property;

(2) the act was done with evil intent;

(3) its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or the means employed is inadequate or ineffectual;

(4) the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.

What is the purpose of punishing impossible crime, given that objectively no felony was actually committed?

To suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendency — although objectively no crime could have resulted due to the impossibility, subjectively the offender has revealed himself to be a criminal.

Is there such a thing as attempted or frustrated impossible crime?

No. Since the offender has already performed all the acts of execution he intended, but the crime could not be produced due to inherent impossibility, the offense is treated as consummated in the form of an impossible crime — it cannot simultaneously be incomplete (attempted).

BAR: Believing his enemy Palangpangan to be asleep in her room, Intod and companions fire multiple shots into the room. Unknown to them, Palangpangan was sleeping elsewhere that night, so no one was hit. Is Intod liable for attempted murder?

No, only for an impossible crime. The intended victim's actual absence from the room made the crime's accomplishment factually and objectively impossible under the true state of facts, regardless of what Intod subjectively believed at the time (Intod vs. Court of Appeals).

Under Article 59, what penalty is imposed for an impossible crime?

Arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender.